Sgt. Joe Caravetta, a B.C. conservation officer, said two men in their mid-30s from Fernie were walking on a popular hiking and mountain biking trail between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. when they encountered a sow and her cub.

He said the sow became “very defensive” of her cub and attacked one of the men and pushed him about six metres down the steep trail near the peak of the mountain.

The man used his bear spray and the grizzly retreated, said Caravetta. The sow then went after the other hiker and knocked him to the ground before chewing on his arms and upper body.

Caravetta said the hiker pulled out his gun and shot the bear at close range. The wounded animal ran away with her cub. The men administered their own first-aid from supplies they were carrying in their packs.

I also am wondering what type and caliber of gun was used, primarily because handgun possession laws are much stricter in Canada, so much so that the statistical chances of a hiker being able to legally carry a handgun for bear protection in Canada is effectively zero. So without knowing anything more, I would guess that it was likely a small pump action shotgun, or a rifle.

report that a shotgun was used. Which is a whole more likely (because it is more legal) to be carried in Canada. The OP's link makes it sounds like the use of the gun was what stopped the attack. The article linked above describes:

"The man was able to get his bear spray out and when he sprayed the sow, she retreated but went after the second man, who fired a shotgun at her and, according to his report, struck her at a fairly close distance, Caravetta said.

The bear continued to attack the man, biting his upper arm and chest before retreating.

"Perhaps once the bear had him down, she felt the threat was gone," Caravetta said, adding the attack is considered defensive and not predatory."

Indicating that, for this attack, this bear, this turn of events; pepper spray stopped the attack on the first man, a shotgun didn't stop the attack on the second man – his going down stopped the attack. UL note: Pepper Spray = 14 oz and worked, shotgun = 6 pounds and didn't work, duck&cover = 0 oz and worked albeit with some injuries.)

And, as Jerry has been pointing out: ""We're not pursuing the bear because it's a bad bear, we're pursuing it because we think it's wounded," Caravetta said, adding depending on the severity of its injury, the bear would have to be euthanized and the cub likely taken somewhere to be rehabilitated."

Spray: +1 Gun: 0
Humans -0.05 Bears: -1

Gun forums are pondering what gauge shotgun and what load (buckshot, slug, etc) was used, and have the implicit or explicit idea that if he carried the right weapon, the bear would have gone down instantaneous. Having seen a medium-sized black bear take two .338 bullets (3800 foot-pounds versus a 1-ounce 12-gauge slug at 1000 foot-pounds) and keep going, I know that's not always true.

I ponder "How much noise were they making immediately before the encounter?" I wish (like seat belt use in a MVA) that was a standard interview question and included in more news reports. UL note: yelling weighs nothing.

"I heard a growl, and then we both heard a second growl, and we said, 'What was that?'" said Farkas.

"And before we could react, she was on us … She knocked [Braconnier] over, hit him in the back and took him downhill out of my sight behind some shrubs."

After the bear swiped Braconnier four times and swung him through the air by his arm, he managed to hit back with some bear spray.

"She was right there — arm's distance — I hit her with some bear spray," Braconnier recalled.

Undeterred, the bear turned on Farkas, who was fumbling with a shotgun.

"When I saw her coming back up the hill, I had been fumbling with unstrapping the shotgun off my back, fumbling with shells," he said.

"I managed to load a shell. I saw her paws. I shot … She seemed to stand up and writhe in pain like I had connected with her. And in an instant like lightning, she was around a bit of a corner and airborne at me, and she clawed me and pushed me back."

Farkas feared for the worst when he landed on his back more than three metres down the hill, with the angry grizzly bearing down on him.

"The most terrifying part was I was so vulnerable, head down hill, feet up. I was screaming. Her face was no more than a foot from my boot. And she turned around and left."

"Perhaps once the bear had him down, she felt the threat was gone," Caravetta said…

Well, since we're speculating wildly, "

—
not quite so fast my politically incorrect friend. this is a bear with cubs. she will be Defending her own from the hikers, not feeding on them. interpretations of the situation is not speculation. not at all. this is what they do. i know this. i had pretty much the same thing for a mom. bears are reasonably predictable. not 100%, but close enough.
once hiker #1 sprayed her and was down (now threat free), she went after #2. noise, wound, fear, all notwithstanding, after he went down, she was finished. job done, same as. next ?

guns shmuns, i love 'em too, but for surprise bear encounters they are a distant third best thing to making noise and carrying spray.
on the other hand, if an encounter goes on and on, and you are being stalked over time/distance, well then, it's not really a surprise anymore is it ? about that time, rest assured, that little tin can is going to feel terribly not-enough, and you'll be sorely wanting that stainless 338 with kevlar stock we all dream about. back to speculation, no healthy sow with cubs is going to stalk a pair of smelly humans. it's not what they do.
—
mostly though :
you gott'a make some noise, and you got to stand fast your ground as well.
is gets scary.

You guys must strongly believe in the power of pepper spray, to interpret this story's spraying as effective when the bear continues to attack "undeterred" (in the words of the report) after being sprayed. And apparently you also think the shotgun blast had little or no effect in breaking off the attack? This interpretation stretches credulity for me, but I understand that's one possible view…so…OK!

Obviously spray is much lighter in weight and thus much preferred for backpacking. And it doesn't require "fumbling around" to load, as the (apparently) unloaded shotgun did in this story.

You mention a person can deploy pepper spray "without even using your hands if necessary." How is that done?

sounds like the guy carrying the shotgun didn't have bear spray (or decided not to use and went for the shotgun)????; got to wonder why would you carry a shotgun, presumably for bear protection as there aren't many hunting seasons open in July and not have it loaded????

lots of what ifs, but what if both individuals were carrying bear spray, both deployed them and both sprayed????

I'm frequently asked in the backcountry what I would use in a grizzly charge- my duty sidearm or the bear spray I'm also carrying- it's an easy one to answer for me, the bear spray- it's much easier to "hit" a charging bear w/ a wide aerosol pattern of bear spray than a bullet and unlike Hollywood, charging big critters (including humans) very seldom drop like a ton of bricks, they much more often keep going

its all a moot point anyways cause the BPL bears never attack anyone …. they simply lounge around the forums looking cute … that way you would never have to add the back breaking weight of that spray to your XUL spreadsheet

With your disdain for firearms as protection against griz attack I hope you don't ever go into grizzly territory. Others with similar ideas have fared very poorly when attacked by Ursus Horribilis.

I have heard similar opinions from those who eschew firearms. As the saying goes, "a Democrat is a Republican who has never been mugged." (Well, I AM a Democrat but I carry and I hunt. I see no conflict there.

Addendum:
I see from others' posts that you have travelled extensively in grizzly territory, likely carrying bells and bear spray. I bow to your experience, having only faced down black bears myself – with the largest canister of bear spray I could buy.

And, upon closer reading of your post I see you do know that a "Kevlar stocked .338 (Win, mag.) would be comforting if stalked by a bear.

In light of this I retract my acid comment forthwith.
As Rosanna Rosanna Danna used to say on SNL, "Never mind."

I didn't see that Peter had anything against guns per se. Actually, he said he liked guns and spoke fondly of a certain .338.

Mike is a Montana Game Warden.

I had caribou stew tonight. From Adak in the Aleutians which I schlepped out from the hunt last Fall.

One can appreciate guns as tools for certain tasks, look at the evidence of scores of bear encounters and conclude that I, personally, am going to carry spray (if anything) and make a lot of noise (always).

No one is telling you not to carry a gun. I'm always telling people to do whatever approach they want. HYOH. I'm not going to stop someone from bringing their grandfather's canvas umbrella tent. It's how I started camping. But I'll point out that a nylon dome tent, sil-nylon tarp, etc, is lighter and more effective. Cause it's a forum for discussion of various issues.

I've looked at published research, talked to lots of people (except for that patient of my wife's who squeezed off a rifle round, clipped some brown bear hairs and drew some blood because he was, well, dead from a chomped skull), and pondered all the grizzly experiences we've had and the ones we've avoided having.

For myself: Always noise. And being alert to my surroundings. Spray in a higher-threat time and place. Guns, for me, only if I'm going for some bear sausage, roast, etc. Like 6 weeks ago.